Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 26 Apr 2015 05:26:36 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at lucien desgai 36 DMcNI did try referring 31 yesterday because of the white space (I don't suppose much can be done about the rubbish). The mods weren't interested but I think this should be brought to the attention of the Czar if they continue. The super-size posts ruin the flow of the blog and are deeply narcissistic. Fri 18 Sep 2009 09:17:24 GMT+1 David_McNickle l_d 32, I think PM should stop padding his white spaces with a load of rubbish. Fri 18 Sep 2009 08:58:00 GMT+1 JacquelineDiane People who live in glass boxes shouldn`t throw boomerangs. Thu 17 Sep 2009 23:22:47 GMT+1 JacquelineDiane Eddie Mair`s beautiful voice makes a girl`s toes curl......Well, this girls, at any rate. Thu 17 Sep 2009 23:20:21 GMT+1 Looternite #30. Joseph WalkerYou said: "Why is it okay for BBC journalists to assiduously and aggressively challenge the likes of Nick Griffin at every opportunity, but apparently not okay to give John Bolton the argument he deserves?".Maybe, because Mr Griffin is a bit thick and Bolton is not and out wits the interviewer. Thu 17 Sep 2009 22:30:22 GMT+1 lucien desgai 31 PM - Please don't pad your comments with white space - it pushes everyone else's posts off screen and makes it tedious to scroll up and down the blog. Thu 17 Sep 2009 20:09:14 GMT+1 LionHeartedLion A well known high street bank seems to have come up with the sort of deal described widely as 'opaque'.That seems to be a euphemism for 'completely dishonest but legal'Can't you interview one of the 44 dealers seemingly employed for this one?The bank give 12.3 billion of toxic assets to an offshore outfit they've created.Then they loan the outfit 12.6 billion which they want back after 10 years with 3.6 billion of interest.That is surely only 2/3 of what they'd get investing it in 10 year Treasury stock, isn't it?Meanwhile under realistic assumptions the stock is worth 1/5 of its original pre-crunch value.The whole scheme is backed by US and other investors who appear to have put in, in total, less than 1/4 billion!Apparently if the toxic assets don't earn the off shore outfit the 3.6 billion they may default legally under the deal, even though they've made, say, 6.7 billion by investing it in 10 year T-bills, here.In other words they are entitled to renege on 3.6 (the loan) minus 2.46 (the real value of the toxic dedt) BILLION = 1.14 BillionSo the bank have handed 1.14 + 3.1 (nterest foregone) = 4.24 billion to this off shore bunch of bankers.The MECHANISM of the credit squeeze we are contantly told is a huge unwillinness to lend becasue of sub prime defaults.Next we're told the credit close down has caused losses hundreds times bigger than the sub - prime default.I remember someone on this blog saying 'Well, where's the money gone then?'One answer was that the money men devalued their own paper assets (stocks)Another seems to be that it was being syphoned off into private pockets like this banks scam.The deal is supposed to make the bank look good. For a year no losses derived from the toxic debt will appeart on their balance sheets. But after 10...It's a bankrupt bank anyway, subsisting on our money.Are you going to call these people out or not? Or wait till the directors have collected their US based rewards?You know someone has to blow the whistle.Stiglitz argues the bankers are too powerful lobbys on the Hill. David Hare, that writer of consolation prize plays for lefties says we're being held to ransom by banks here.No, we're just letting them get away with it. You need to interrogate these guys like you do politicians. Or are you going to let them get away with it like.......politicians?Am I allowed to name the bank here? Can you? Is that why you, Peston and Flanders hear evil but speak of none? Thu 17 Sep 2009 19:46:57 GMT+1 Joe Walker PeoplesMandate (28)Quite. It's strong stuff. He's a Libertarian (the US definition), who also believes that US interests are the world's interests. He is deeply committed to this view and its implications and takes every opportunity to promote it.Like most extremists, no amount of evidence of failure will change his mind and in some ways will even, perversely, reinforce his beliefs. Unchallenged I believe he is a dangerous man, but properly challenged I think he and his ideas will become an irrelevance.Why is it okay for BBC journalists to assiduously and aggressively challenge the likes of Nick Griffin at every opportunity, but apparently not okay to give John Bolton the argument he deserves? Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:57:22 GMT+1 Looternite #28 PeoplesMandateSo are all democracies that do not elect right wing governments.Even Barack Obama is against America's interest according to Bolton. Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:50:18 GMT+1 LionHeartedLion Do you remember when Bolton told Mair that democracy in Pakistan was against America's interest.He thinks the banks should not have been bailed out. Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:40:47 GMT+1 Joe Walker lucien_desgai (25)I know some of the best investigative journalism still comes out of the BBC, but It seems certain areas are just verbotten or at least badly hobbled by an anxiety not to present too radical a view (relative to the position held by powerful interests). Examples of this might include Israel and Palestine, The Iraq War, US politics and UK-US relations. For people like me who generally support and defend the principle and existence of the BBC, it can be quite depressing. Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:32:15 GMT+1 Joe Walker lucien_desgai (25) I suspect that prior to 2003, Bolton's ravings may have been tested and challenged more fully. They have never been mainstream. To me, they represent a world view as extreme as any unreconstructed Marxist or Fascist - and we know how much air-time they get! I'm all for Bolton being given time to tell us what he thinks, but let's hear him being challenged by some serious thinking for once. Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:21:24 GMT+1 lucien desgai 24 JWThe problem I don't think is one of BBC reticence or cowardice - the corporation is still capable of speaking truth to power, the investigation of the Ivory Coast pollution scandal being a very topical example. I'm also sure that the BBC doesn't allow Bolton to set the terms of his interview.What I suspect occurs is that in any discussion of America's role in the world the BBC feels obliged to get a neo-conservative viewpoint and that the sexy (in radio terms) Bolton is always on hand to provide one. His soundbites then get recycled and inserted into many different news programmes. This gives his deeply controversial - and possibly dangerous - contributions the feel of an expert opinion. I wish that the BBC would only air his views when they can be properly tested and debated. Thu 17 Sep 2009 18:09:29 GMT+1 Joe Walker lucien_desgai (18)It concerns me too. I know the BBC line on this - editorial independence of BBC programmes (PM included), etc, but have we forgotten Andrew Gilligan? I am genuinely confused about this because following the 2003 Today Programme broadcast of the now infamous pre-Iraq War interview with Gilligan revealing the 'dodgy dossier', BBC News and Current Affairs changed very suddenly. During the Gilligan Affair fall-out, the public were actually informed through the media (including through reports on the BBC itself) at the time that, due to this 'mistake', broad changes were to be made to the way editorial decisions took place; it was even said at the time that journalists and editors were to be sent for 're-training'. Looking back, by the way, could that sound any more sinister?!Six years later, are we to assume those repercussions were all just made up, perhaps because it made exciting copy at the time? Or can we say that the sort of accurate but, as it turned out, highly explosive political journalism that Gilligan and Today came up with that fateful morning was to cause a subtle, but significant long-term change in the way BBC journalists, producers and editors handle certain subjects; in this case our relationship with the US and particularly regarding matters of foreign policy?I feel that the extraordinarily powerful influence of a particular world view, that mostly emanates from a certain political group in the US, still has, despite it's apparent banishment from mainstream US politics, an institutional hold within the BBC for reasons I don't fully understand, but which concern me. Like you I have never heard Bolton's nor any of his ilk's extremist views being fully challenged on mainstream BBC News and Current Affairs. It seems healthy debate in the BBC, while it goes on, is even more selective than ever. Thu 17 Sep 2009 17:34:48 GMT+1 Looternite Now I have been reffered. Don't be tongue in cheek about some people it appears. Thu 17 Sep 2009 17:20:21 GMT+1 lucien desgai I just switched to 'World Have Your Say' on the World Service and heard Bolton giving the opening soundbite. Aaargh! Thu 17 Sep 2009 17:09:25 GMT+1 lucien desgai Or a bushy moustache in the days of Brown. Thu 17 Sep 2009 17:03:34 GMT+1 Looternite #18. lucien_desgai I know what you are saying and fully agree with you. It's as if he is too respected by the BBC for them to interupt him. Or, now here's a thought that he only agrees to the interview if he is allowed to speak without interuption. Thu 17 Sep 2009 17:02:54 GMT+1 Looternite #17. steelpulseI was tongue in cheek about my #10, in the light of the Obama thing. Then, newlach @ #9 got reffered.How did Bolton get a white moustache and brownish hair, in the days of Bushy. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:59:31 GMT+1 lucien desgai 8 JWBolton is probably the only one able to articulate a defence of the carnage his country wrought over the last decade. It concerns me that his extreme views are so rarely challenged or properly interrogated on the BBC.There was his appearance on Question Time before a 'specially invited' audience but he is also often heard just in pre-recorded soundbites or interviewed as though he's an overseas journalist and not the belligerent participant in debate that he is. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:55:20 GMT+1 steelpulse Richard Hearne - the original Mr Pastry. Well, well. I had honestly forgotten him.And Looternite - we are all free to write anything we want but I just frowned. And John Bolton was the cause.I think we are "referred" for what we say here - not who we say it about. I get my laughs were I can and hearing the ballot papers "were going out" to Royal Mail employees."What do you mean, people - you didn't get them? I posted them myself!" lolMr Pastry. Puff - the Magic Drag On - lived by the stove. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:53:56 GMT+1 Patrick Too Do we guess who the regional accents were? Was that our own Lovely Annabelle Tiffin for the North West? Not the best example really! What was wrong with an EAST Midland accent for the Midlands for goodness sake - and the East Anglian one wasn't brilliant - I was there just last week and everyone's bootiful down there! Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:52:25 GMT+1 Joe Walker Looternite (12)Well, not that old, but when 'Bonkers' was at the height of his political career a few years back, I heard mention that there was a certain Mr. Pastryish about him. I looked up this character on the interweb thingy... and sure enough! Suggest everyone gives it a try... It's uncanny! Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:50:53 GMT+1 newlach I forget what I wrote - apologies if I have offended anyone. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:43:43 GMT+1 Looternite #9. newlachWhoa look at that! You were reffered. I warned you she is Afro-Caribean. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:41:10 GMT+1 Looternite #11. SidYou are so right there.#8. Joseph WalkerYou must be old! To remember Mr Pastry. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:38:23 GMT+1 Sid JW @ 8To me, Bonkers Bolton fills the role taken in the UK by John Redwood - if he disagrees with something, you know it's right. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:36:01 GMT+1 Looternite #9. newlachBe careful, Lady Scotland is Afro-Caribean and you may be seen as critising her. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:28:02 GMT+1 newlach If the person in charge of prosecuting criminals has employed an illegal worker what is the chance that Joe Bloggs gets it right? It would be interesting to know what documentation Lady Scotland saw before deciding to employ the woman in question. Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:22:05 GMT+1 Joe Walker Why is 'Bonkers Bolton' (aka Mr. Pastry) always wheeled out for comment when a piece of post-Bush Obama-styled US policy gets made? He was a shocking extremist when he was influencing policy, now he just sounds like a raging irrelevant buffoon. Is it supposed to entertain us or is he just the only flag-waver of earlier US policy who is still prepared to noisily defend the carnage his country wrought over the last decade? Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:17:30 GMT+1 lordBeddGelert Will you be getting Stewart Copeland to play the 'PM' studio as well ? on, don't let 'Loose Ends' and Sarah Montague have all the fun... Thu 17 Sep 2009 16:12:49 GMT+1 Looternite #3. mittfhBlimey took me awhile and a visit to the DIY emporium in between but looking at it again I think I have it.Are you reffering to erm.. Charlie Drake by any chance. Thu 17 Sep 2009 15:43:34 GMT+1 U14138029 Strewth mates, I only know one Ozzie on the blog! Thu 17 Sep 2009 15:24:56 GMT+1 ValeryP Hmm, well they don't look like wine corks - so who's been doing some home-bottling recently? Thu 17 Sep 2009 15:02:01 GMT+1 mittfh "You already owe me 14 chickens for teaching you how to throw a boomerang!" Thu 17 Sep 2009 14:27:02 GMT+1 Lady_Sue 'Strueth - looks like Crocodile Dundee meets Darth Vader Thu 17 Sep 2009 14:03:49 GMT+1 Big Sister G'day, Glass Box. Feeling a bit Down Under, are we? Thu 17 Sep 2009 13:59:02 GMT+1